Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
05/13/2022 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB131 | |
| SB173 | |
| SB20 | |
| SB243 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 131 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 173 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 243 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 131(title am)
"An Act relating to the presumption of compensability
for a disability resulting from certain cancers in
firefighters."
1:36:03 PM
Co-Chair Merrick indicated the committee would take up the
three amendments that were submitted to her office.
1:36:36 PM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony.
1:36:53 PM
AT EASE
1:37:14 PM
RECONVENED
1:37:28 PM
RICHARD ETHERIDGE, ALASKA FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, JUNEAU
(via teleconference), spoke in support of SB 131. He shared
that he had been a firefighter in Alaska for over 30 years.
During his career, he had learned that many job related
things had been documented to cause cancer in firefighters.
He listed items known to cause cancer to firefighters on
the job including structure fire smoke, soot buildup in
gear, firehalls that contained diesel buildup, fire foam,
and protective gear containing PFAS. With the knowledge of
the problems, methods had been developed to reduce risk as
much as possible. He shared that if a firefighter's cancer
was on the presumptive list, they had to prove they met the
strict requirements to qualify for the workers'
compensation program. He explained that if the cancer was
not on the presumptive list, it still may be a workplace
illness; it meant firefighters then had a harder job to
prove what caused the cancer.
Mr. Etheridge provided additional detail. He stated that SB
131 did not create additional liability for municipalities.
The bill specified that if a person had an approved cancer,
they would not be forced to go through a protracted
bureaucratic process. He stated that according to the
Workers' Compensation office, there had been very few
claims filed. He relayed that the state insurance director
had testified at a recent hearing that the cost to the
state was so negligible it was not measured. He highlighted
that female firefighters deserved cancer protection equal
to their male counterparts. He asked the committee to pass
the legislation to protect firefighters.
1:40:58 PM
Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated there were two fiscal notes to
review.
SCOTT JORDAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, reviewed Fiscal Note 3. The
fiscal note was indeterminate because there was no data in
the system regarding cancer diseases with firefighters. The
department had attached average costs for cancers found
online. He added the note factored in death benefits that
would go to a firefighter's dependents if the firefighter
died due to the illness.
Co-Chair Merrick asked the department to review the second
fiscal note.
CHARLES COLLINS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKERS'
COMPENSATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
(via teleconference), reviewed the zero fiscal note
(control code: iAIPv) by Department of Labor and Workforce
Development. He relayed that the division did not cover any
firefighters; therefore, there it would see no added
expense. He noted the actuary was unable to provide a
number on cost; the synopsis was included with the note.
1:44:13 PM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 32-
LS0598\G.1, (Marx, 4/29/22)(copy on file):
Page 1, line 2, following "firefighters":
Insert"; relating to the payment of workers'
compensation benefits in the case of permanent partial
impairment; relating to the payment of workers'
compensation death benefits; and providing for an
effective date"
Page 3, following line 6:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 23.30.190(a) is amended to read:
(a) In case of impairment partial in character but
permanent in quality, and not resulting in permanent
total disability, the compensation is $273,000
[$177,000] multiplied by the employee's percentage of
permanent impairment of the whole person. The
percentage of permanent impairment of the whole person
is the percentage of impairment to the particular body
part, system, or function converted to the percentage
of impairment to the whole person as provided under
(b) of this section. The compensation is payable in a
single lump sum, except as otherwise provided in AS
23.30.041, but the compensation may not be discounted
for any present value considerations.
* Sec. 4. AS 23.30.215(a) is amended to read:
(a) If the injury causes death, the compensation is
known as a death benefit and is payable in the
following amounts to or for the benefit of the
following persons:
(1) reasonable and necessary funeral expenses not
exceeding $12,000 [$10,000];
(2) if there is a widow or widower or a child or
children of the deceased, the following percentages of
the spendable weekly wages of the deceased:
(A) 80 percent for the widow or widower with no
children;
(B) 50 percent for the widow or widower with one child
and 40 percent for the child;
(C) 30 percent for the widow or widower with two or
more
children and 70 percent divided equally among the
children;
(D) 100 percent for an only child when there is no
widow or
widower;
(E) 100 percent, divided equally, if there are two or
more children and no widow or widower;
(3) if the widow or widower remarries, the widow or
widower is entitled to be paid in one sum an amount
equal to the compensation to which the widow or
widower would otherwise be entitled in the two years
commencing on the date of remarriage as full and final
settlement of all sums due the widow or widower;
(4) if there is no widow or widower or child or
children, then for the support of father, mother,
grandchildren, brothers, and sisters, if dependent on
[UPON] the deceased at the time of injury, 42 percent
of the spendable weekly wage of the deceased to such
beneficiaries, share and share alike, not to exceed
$150,000 [$20,000) in the aggregate;
(5) $8,000 [$5,000] to a surviving widow or widower,
or equally divided among surviving children of the
deceased if there is no widow or widower.
* Sec. 5. AS 23.30.215 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(j) A death benefit payable to a child under (a)(2)(D)
or (E) of this section continues until the child
reaches 23 years of age, unless extended under AS
23.30.395(8)."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 3, lines 9 - 10:
Delete all material and insert:
"APPLICABILITY. AS 23.30.12l(b), as amended by sec. 1
of this Act, and AS 23.20.121(?), as amended by sec. 2
of this Act, apply to claims made on or after the
effective date of secs. 1 and 2 of this Act."
Page 3, following line 10:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 7. This Act takes effect January 1, 2023."
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson reviewed the amendment that was
identical to a bill (HB 30) passed out of the House Finance
Committee and was passed on the House floor by a vote of 29
to 10. He shared that he had been working on the topic for
nine years. The amendment included an update to permanent
and partial impairment. He had seen the issue through the
House three times. He had informed the sponsor of SB 131 of
his intention to offer the amendment. The sponsor had not
asked him to offer the amendment or not offer the
amendment. He stated that the bill was backed by the Alaska
General Contractors, the Alaska Builders and Contractors,
and the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce. Additionally, the
bill was affordable. He shared that Mr. Collins with the
Division of Workers' compensation had testified there had
been a cumulative reduction in in workers' compensation of
40 percent over the last eight years. The bill would cause
a net 14 percent increase. He stressed that Alaska did not
th
want to be the 46 state for disability due to workers'
compensation.
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
1:46:24 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 32-LS0598\G.2,
(Marx, 5/13/22) (copy on file):
Page 1, line 2, following "firefighters":
Insert"; relating to occupational diseases; and
relating to the fishermen's fund"
Page 3, following line 6:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 23.35.150(5) is amended to read:
(5) "occupational disease" means hernia; varicose
veins of the leg; the respiratory diseases, novel
coronavirus disease (COVID-19), bronchitis, pleurisy,
and pneumonia caused by or aggravated by the fishing
endeavor, but excluding the common cold and influenza;
rheumatism, arthritis, and those musculoskeletal
diseases (such as bursitis, traumatic sciatica, and
tenosynovitis) directly caused by or aggravated by the
fishing endeavor; and does not include a disease not
common to both sexes, venereal disease, or a condition
arising out of an attempt of a fisherman to injure
self or another."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 3, line 9:
Delete "AS 23.30.121(b) and (f), as amended by this
Act, apply"
Insert "This Act applies"
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Ortiz explained the amendment was a self-
contained issue to the Fishermen's Fund and there would be
no added fiscal cost to workers' compensation, the state's
fiscal obligations, or local municipalities' fiscal
obligations. The amendment added the COVID-19 portion of SB
131 to the Fishermen's Fund. There was no cost to anyone
other than fishermen, who had requested adding the benefit
to their fund.
1:47:29 PM
Representative Johnson asked if the amendment would add
COVID-19 as one of the occupational [inaudible]. She asked
for further clarification.
Vice-Chair Ortiz replied that the virus spread more rapidly
when people were confined in a fishing boat. He clarified
the issue was whether or not people who were part of the
Fishermen's Fund felt they needed some added insurance
protection from COVID-19. He explained their health
insurance was from the Fishermen's Fund. He explained that
the inclusion may add to fishermen's premiums or other
cost. He clarified that any associated costs would be taken
care of by fishermen. He added the inclusion had been
requested by fishermen.
Representative Johnson surmised the amendment added the
Fishermen's Fund to the bill.
Vice-Chair Ortiz provided further clarification. He
explained the amendment matched the theme of the bill
because the bill talked about adding COVID-19 to workers'
compensation. The benefit was only about the Fishermen's
Fund and would be paid for by fishermen. He clarified it
was the fishermen's health insurance program.
1:49:57 PM
Representative Carpenter understood the concept of
occupational disease as something that specifically related
to the occupation. He listed health problems such as
varicose veins, a hernia, bronchitis, and pneumonia. He
thought the Coronavirus had more in common with the flu
than a hernia. He remarked that the amendment would add the
Coronavirus, but current statute excluded influenza. He
thought it appeared to go against the underlying theme of
the statute.
Co-Chair Merrick asked Mr. Collins if he had a response.
Mr. Collins offered that Fishermen's Fund insurance did not
work like workers' compensation. He explained it was merely
a reimbursement of expenses to the boat or fishermen. He
elaborated that fishermen did not pay premiums they paid a
fee on their license purchased through the Department of
Fish and Game. He informed committee members that the setup
of the Fishermen's Fund had been set since prior to
statehood. He was not aware of any requests from the Fish
Fund Council on coverage for COVID-19. He was surprised to
hear the amendment. He added the amendment would not impact
the cost to any claims because it was a fee fishermen
charged themselves to cover the Fishermen's Fund, which was
a reimbursement vehicle and not insurance.
Representative Carpenter asked why the common cold and
influenza were excluded.
1:52:56 PM
AT EASE
1:53:34 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick indicated Representative Rasmussen had
joined the meeting.
Vice-Chair Ortiz WITHDREW Amendment 2. He remarked there
were some reasonable questions about the amendment, and he
was not the person to answer them. He would get the answers
to the questions.
1:54:07 PM
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 1
(copy on file):
Page 1, line 13
Delete "skin cancer [MALIGNANT MELANOMA];"
Insert "malignant melanoma;"
Page 2, line 4
Add "and"
Page 2, lines 6-12
Delete all material
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative LeBon reviewed the conceptual amendment. He
pointed to page 1, line 13 of the bill and explained the
amendment would delete skin cancer and replace it with
malignant melanoma. Additionally, on page 2, line 4, the
word "and" was added following the words "prostate cancer"
and lines 6 through 12 would be deleted. The paragraph
would end with the words "and with breast cancer." The
subsequent cancers would be deleted. He was trying to
strike a balance between reasonable risk and cost and the
burden that would befall municipalities, cities, and
organized boroughs. The original version of the bill simply
added breast cancer to the list of cancers firefighters had
a presumption and that the claim for workers' compensation
may result through their employment. He elaborated that due
to the limited number of claims, breast cancer did not seem
to have a significant impact on workers' compensation rates
paid by the state and municipality employers of
firefighters.
Representative LeBon explained that the House Labor and
Commerce Committee added the seven additional cancers he
listed and proposed for removal. He stated that the
indeterminate fiscal note from the House Labor and Commerce
Committee only showed possible cost to the state as an
employer of airport firefighters. He remarked that House
Finance Committee had heard from Nils Andreassen with the
Alaska Municipal League who had suggested that Alaska
municipal communities, towns, cities, boroughs had raised
concerns and suggested that the state consider capitalizing
a trust fund that would cover the presumptive conditions.
He noted at the current point in session it was difficult
to evaluate the proposed solution. He continued that the
amendment would help reduce the uncertainty to communities
while consideration of the additional cancers could be
raised at a future time if deemed appropriate.
1:57:10 PM
Representative Josephson thought Ms. Lori Wing-Heier
testified that it would not cost the state much because
they [the cancers] were uncommon. He was disinclined to
remove the additions.
1:58:12 PM
LORI WING-HEIER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INSURANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
(via teleconference), indicated Representative Josephson's
comments were accurate. She relayed there was no data for
Alaska or other jurisdictions expanding benefits for
firefighters. She explained that every state had the
presumptions and Alaska's were fairly strict and the cases
were few and far between. She elaborated there was not a
trend for any actuary or insurer to attest that the bill
and the inclusion of one cancer or ten cancers would have
an impact on the cost to the firefighting organizations.
She considered that perhaps it would in the future;
however, at the current point, cases were so few and far
between, there was no data to suggest the rates would
increase.
Representative LeBon asked how many of the firefighters
impacted by the bill were state employed versus employed by
cities, boroughs, and municipalities.
Ms. Wing-Heier responded that she would have to follow up
with the information. She noted that many of the smaller
fire departments such as Chugiak and Cooper Landing (those
fire departments surviving on bake sales) would not be able
to afford to have their members get an annual physical to
qualify for "this." As for the number of state
firefighters, she deferred to Mr. Jordan.
Representative LeBon asked who bore the cost of the risk
for a municipality, city, or borough with their volunteer
or paid fire departments. He asked if it would be the
municipality versus the state.
Ms. Wing-Heier responded that the employer of record would
pay the cost for the workers' compensation claim if they
were self-insured or for the workers' compensation
insurance.
Representative LeBon remarked that he was speaking about
the bigger population, while Ms. Wing-Heier was referring
to the smaller population.
Co-Chair Merrick asked if Mr. Jordan could respond.
2:01:37 PM
Mr. Jordan reported that there were 1,300 fire fighters
working for the state; however, the majority were seasonal
wildfire firefighters for the Department of Natural
Resources. He believed about 100 to 120 of the total were
fulltime employees working for the airports.
Representative LeBon asked about the difference in the size
of the two groups in major communities employing
firefighters including Fairbanks, Anchorage, Kenai, Juneau,
Wasilla.
Mr. Jordan did not have the numbers, but he suspected the
number was quite a bit higher than the number of
firefighters working for the state.
Representative Thompson asked Mr. Collins to comment.
2:02:52 PM
Mr. Collins reported that under workers' compensation,
Anchorage, Mat-Su, Kenai, Fairbanks, Juneau, and possibly
Ketchikan, were all self-insured entities. He explained
that any firefighters under the entities would be paid
under self-insurance. The department did not track an
organization's employees by job classification. He remarked
that the self-insured entities likely had more firefighters
than those employed by the two airports.
Representative LeBon asked to hear from Mr. Nils
Andreassen. He was interested in the firefighter
population.
2:04:39 PM
NILS ANDREASSEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA MUNICIPAL
LEAGUE, believed there were more than 1,000 municipal
firefighters. He discussed the distinction between self-
insured firefighters and those who were not. The larger
municipalities were self-insured and managed their risk
independently of other municipalities; they would manage
the impacts of the bill on their own. He referenced letters
in committee members' packets from APEI [Alaska Public
Entity Insurance] and AMLJIA [Alaska Municipal League Joint
Insurance Association]. He elaborated the entities were
pools formed under statute to allow for risk sharing. He
explained that all of the smaller municipalities were
members of those pools. The impacts of the bill would be
felt by every other municipal employer. He listed location
examples including Kwethluk, Russian Mission, Kotzebue, and
Kodiak. There was a distinction between an employer picking
up the costs versus a pool picking up the costs. He
explained that a pool would have very different assets
available to deal with the claims. He stated that even
infrequent claims could have challenging impacts to the
pools.
2:06:25 PM
Representative Josephson asked if malignant melanoma
referred to a precancerous skin condition, which would
allow for denial of claims. He asked if skin cancer was a
broader disease than malignant melanoma.
Ms. Wing-Heier responded that she did not have the answer
to his question.
Mr. Collins pointed out that melanoma was already in
statute and there had been a change in the Labor and
Commerce Committee to include the broader term "skin
cancer." He believed the amendment would change the
language back to current statute.
Representative Wool stated that malignant melanoma was skin
cancer.
2:08:36 PM
Representative Josephson shared he had seen a Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report from 2016 that
indicated firefighters were subject to cancers like
testicular cancer and multiple myeloma. He stated the
cancers were listed in the bill. He did not believe the
change would be significantly impactful and he trusted in
the co-chairs of the House Labor and Commerce Committee.
Co-Chair Merrick MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: LeBon, Thompson, Carpenter
OPPOSED: Wool, Josephson, Ortiz, Rasmussen, Johnson,
Foster, Merrick
Representative Edgmon was absent from the vote.
The MOTION to adopt conceptual Amendment 1 FAILED (3/7).
Vice-Chair Ortiz relayed he would not be offering Amendment
2.
Representative Josephson spoke in support of the bill. He
referred to SB 131 as "a very fine bill" that was not
costly and would help keep Alaskans healthier and safer.
Representative Carpenter asked how the International Agency
for Research on Cancer (ARC) and the National Toxicology
Program (NTP) defined exposure. He cited testimony stating
the following items were hazardous: diesel particles at the
fire station, smoke from fires, soot residue on the
personal protective equipment (PPE), and materials in the
manufacturing of the PPE.
2:12:18 PM
NIKKI ROSE, STAFF, SENATOR ROGER HOLLAND, responded that
there had been prior testimony in several committees from
fire fighters stating the exposure was logged by Alaskan
fire fighters in incident logs. She elaborated that fire
fighters were instructed to record which chemicals they
were exposed to. She explained that the incident logs
included the information on chemical exposure and dates.
The legislation stated that after a period of seven years
of annual exams and no cancer detected, there was an
opportunity to reexamine the information in the logs. The
fire departments were responsible for storing the logs.
2:13:34 PM
Representative Carpenter asked if it indicated that any
time a fire fighter wore their PPE they filed an exposure
record in the log.
Ms. Rose did not know the answer to the question.
Co-Chair Merrick invited Mr. Etheridge to answer the
question.
2:14:14 PM
Mr. Etheridge responded that detailed training records were
kept. Additionally, anytime firefighters went into a fire
or hazardous materials response, the department was
required to record the information. He stated there was no
record if someone merely put on the protective gear at the
fire station.
Representative Carpenter considered the definition of
exposure. He used a hypothetical example where the PPE
equipment was carcinogenic. He elaborated that if a person
put on the PPE during a training session it was not
considered exposure; however, when the person wore the
equipment while fighting a fire it was considered an
exposure. He remarked that under the scenario, the
firefighter was deciding when they were exposed. He pointed
out that the law specified an exposure was defined by the
ARC and NTP. He did not understand whether the process
involved an individual specifying when exposure occurred or
whether the agencies defined when a person could consider
when exposure had occurred.
Mr. Etheridge did not have any comments about how they
define exposure based on those organizations. He relayed
the department had only found out about the PFAS in bunker
gear fabric in the past year and a half. He remarked it
showed the trend of all of the new things that could
potentially cause cancer.
Representative Johnson commented that in the research she
had done on the bill she had learned firefighting equipment
contained cancer causing materials if exposed to fire. She
remarked that one of the safety mechanisms was to separate
firefighters from the equipment after a fire. She asked if
Representative Carpenter was trying to say that a person's
exposure may not be defined by the length of time spent
fighting a fire, but also in the equipment associated with
cancer causing elements.
Representative Carpenter had some personal military
experience with wearing PPE that was supposed to provide
protection from hazardous things. He used an example and
stated a person would know if they had been exposed to
anthrax because they would get sick and possibly die. He
noted there were decontamination processes when PPE was
donned to provide protection from the environment. He
stated the law specified the firefighter was exposed to a
known carcinogen as defined by the two organizations. He
was trying to understand how the organizations were
defining exposure because the firefighter was not dying
immediately when gear was removed. He did not know whether
the firefighter had actually been exposed when the gear was
removed.
Co-Chair Merrick asked Ms. Rose if it was possible to do
some research and get back to the committee.
Ms. Rose answered that she had just received information
from the firefighters that the ARC and NTP listed and
categorized known carcinogens. She elaborated that
firefighters likely had to prove to the workers'
compensation board that the exposure took place. The board
would refer back to the list of known carcinogens.
2:20:03 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to report HCS SB 131(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HCS SB 131(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with five "do
pass" recommendations and five "no recommendation"
recommendations and with one new zero fiscal note from the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development and one new
fiscal impact note from the Department of Administration.
2:20:29 PM
AT EASE
2:22:01 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 131 Public Testimony Rec'd by 051222.pdf |
HFIN 5/13/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 243 Amendment 1 Thompson 051322.pdf |
HFIN 5/13/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 243 |
| SB 20 Amendment 1 Thompson w Legal Memo 051322.pdf |
HFIN 5/13/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 20 |
| SB 131 Amendment Pkt 051322.pdf |
HFIN 5/13/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 20 DEED Response 20220516 - Count of longterm subs by district and state.pdf |
HFIN 5/13/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 20 |
| SB 20 5.13.2022 (H) FIN Hearing SB20 DEED Follow-Up.pdf |
HFIN 5/13/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 20 |